Much of the criticism of “Hancock” faults the movie for its binary nature. The first half of it is the redemption of the superhero, which is fairly standard action-hero fare, lifted by decent performances. That story ends halfway in. I can picture the screenwriter reaching page 45 and thinking “Now what?”

That’s an exaggeration, of course – but the movie really does feel like two chapters. The second half slows down as Hancock learns his origins.

I didn’t mind that structure, but a more skilled take on the story would have found ways to interweave the two story lines. What bothered me more was the handwaving that went on in the last 20 minutes or so. Hancock and the wife – you know what? Forget it. Power flows from one angel to the other, they die and then don’t die. It’s a mess of little logic.

It’s a bad movie.

But the premises are there. the angels are attracted to each other and always seem to come together. Yet they always need to be apart to survive. But why was this time different?

And they’re not attracted to each other. It’s the husband that makes the connection. They’ve been in the same city for a while.

And once the wife reveals her supernatural self to her husband, she can fly her family to Australia in her arms. If she wants to really get away – which she’s done in the past.